OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 116 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, September 25, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES September 25, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 116 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 116 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 116 (Version officielle) 147 116 25 09 2014 2014/09/25 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ Translation ] Petitions Wetland Protection Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions today. The first petition was signed by people in my riding who want to ensure that the former Saint-Maurice shooting range is decontaminated within a reasonable time frame and that the wetlands and the imperilled flora and fauna in the ecosystem are protected and preserved. I have several hundred signatures and petitions, and I am very proud of my constituents who made the effort to collect these signatures.

Canada Post Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is calling on the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's proposed service cuts and explore other options to modernize the crown corporation's business plan. Terrebonne is one of the cities where door-to-door delivery will be eliminated by 2015. People are very worried about that and wish to express their disapproval.

Consumer Protection Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition aims to put an end to unfair fees and rip-offs. People in my riding are sick and tired of the never-ending fees. By presenting this petition, we are hoping to help families make ends meet.

[ English ] Anaphylaxis Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of dozens of Canadians. They are calling upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to enact a policy to reduce the risk for anaphylactic passengers in Canadian airplanes.

[ Translation ] Consumer Protection Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this summer I had the honour of travelling throughout my riding. A very popular petition was being circulated, and I will be rising often during this session to speak to this issue. The petition addresses the fact that life is becoming less affordable for average Canadians, including the people of my riding, regardless of what the Conservative government likes to say. Everyone is fed up with bank fees. Dozens of people have signed this petition, and there are more to come. They are calling on the government to take measures to protect consumers by capping ATM fees.

Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I just want to present a petition calling for the deportation of Michele Torre to be suspended.

Pensions Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to present petitions from my constituents about pensions. They are upset that the government raised the eligibility age to 67 years. They are asking the government to lower it to 65 years. They indicate that pensions experts, unions, workers, provincial governments and many seniors' organizations support this request.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise this morning to present two petitions. The first petition is about water. [ English ] Many groups across Canada are organizing to remove the use of bottled water. These petitioners ask that bottled water be banned in federal government institutions where potable water is available from the tap. This petition comes from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, particularly Mayne Island, Pender Island, Saturna Island and Sidney.

(1010) Genetically Modified Foods Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on the same subject from residents primarily of Saanich—Gulf Islands. The petitioners call upon the government for the labelling of genetically modified foods.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House signed by petitioners in and around my riding of Beaches—East York with respect to the CBC. These petitioners are anxious to see the CBC retain its status as a core cultural institution able to broadcast our nation's unique identity and linguistic realities. The petitioners call upon the government to guarantee stable, adequate and multi-year financing for our public broadcaster so that it may continue its work in all regions of the country.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act Bill C-36--Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a tightly run machine over here and as a result, I move: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-36,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v.

Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

The Speaker : There will now be a 30-minute question period. I would ask members to try to keep their questions or comments to approximately one minute and responses to a similar length. The hon. member for Gatineau. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, being concise is not my strong suit, especially since this is the 76th time the government has used a time allocation motion. Today it is about a bill that was studied in committee, and many witnesses appeared before that committee.

If I understand correctly, the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would make tomorrow the only day set aside for speeches that are essential to alerting Canadians about the implications of Bill C-36 at second reading and report stage. According to the daily order of business in the House, that happens to be Friday, and everyone knows that on Fridays, the House discusses routine proceedings until 1:30 p.m. That means very little time will be spent on the debate. If memory serves, on Monday, we had barely two and a half hours of debate on Bill C-36 at report stage.

That is the height of indecency. I am learning how Parliament works. Not only have I learned that we are not entitled to receive answers in the chamber, but I have also learned that we do not have the right to speak or even air our opinions. I have a question for the minister. The theory underlying Bill C-36 is that sex workers are victims. However, according to a report published this week, many sex workers do not consider themselves to be victims. Is the government afraid of letting people have their say on Bill C-36 , which experts have condemned as unconstitutional?

If the minister tells me that it is because the Supreme Court gave them until December to bring in legislation, then he misunderstood the Bedford decision.

(1015) Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments and questions. I understand the Bedford decision very well. I also understand that this is an opportunity for the government to protect vulnerable people. [ English ] That is exactly the situation we are in. There is a sense of urgency to have the legislation in place to fill the gap that was created by the Supreme Court in Bedford, in striking down sections of the Criminal Code.

More importantly, there is a necessity on the human side to put in place protections for those vulnerable people. If my friend is asking me if I believe the vast majority of those persons in prostitution being prostituted are victims, yes, I do. Based on the overwhelming evidence and testimony that we heard from committee meetings this summer, from the 3,100 participants in the online consultation, from personal round table meetings and interactions I had with persons in the trade, police, counsellors, and persons working within the justice system, yes, I do believe that.

Do I believe the legislation is constitutionally sound? Do I believe it is good public policy? Do I believe, coupled with the programs that come with the legislation, it will make the necessary difference in people's lives to help them find a better path? Yes, I do. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister indicates he feels the bill is constitutional, but his is pretty much a lone voice among those with legal training who testified before committee. What we know is that the Supreme Court has given Parliament until December 20 to act, if it decides to do so. That is the timeline.

We have three months, and we are looking at limiting debate to two days. A pre-study has already commenced in the Senate. Senator Linda Frum indicated she does not expect to see any amendments at the Senate. All of the amendments at committee, save one that was proposed by the official opposition, were rejected. The bill already appears to be on a fast track. Given that there are still three months before there will be a gap, have there been any meaningful efforts to come to an agreement with respect to a fair amount of time to debate the bill?

If not, does it not seem a bit heavy-handed to take the debate down to two days when there are three months to deal with a complex social problem on which the Canadian public is extremely divided? We learned that from a $175,000 poll which was withheld from the justice committee until the hearings were done. Canadians care about this. Canadians are divided on this, yet it seems as though, unless the minister can tell me otherwise, there has been no real attempt to come up with a fair amount of time for debate. Rather, a heavy-handed measure is being taken here. Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr.

Speaker, we know the member for Charlottetown is a stranger to the truth on a lot of the questions he has put forward. He is very prone to hyperbole. He has put forward the suggestion that there has not been ample time to debate or consult on the bill. We have been given very strict timelines by the Supreme Court in the Bedford decision. In fact, he is factually incorrect in suggesting we have until December 20. We actually have until November 20, because the legislation has a 30-day coming into effect period. We are working on very tight timelines.

I would suggest the bill is unique in that regard, in that we were given a very static timeframe in which to work. With great credit to members of the justice committee both in the House and the Senate, extraordinary work was done over the summer months. Members and senators came back to Ottawa. They had very meaningful hearings in which members of stakeholder groups from across the country were given the opportunity to participate. I have already mentioned the online consultation. To my knowledge, it was the largest in the history of the Department of Justice.

There were 3,100 participants in that online consultation. Yes, it is certainly a topical and in some cases divisive issue. We have taken great strides to get it right. We did so by hearing from persons most affected, those most vulnerable, those most at risk of leaving a legislative gap. That is why we are now moving forward with what is a very informed bill, keeping in mind that amendments have already been made to reflect that input. That is the reason we are moving forward. We have heard from experts. We have heard from Senate and House parliamentarians. Now is the time to proceed with this legislation.

(1020) The Deputy Speaker : Questions and comments. I would ask all members to be conscious of the fact that there are a number of people who want to ask questions and to keep their questions and comments to a minute. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the justice minister said that the government wants to get it right, but the experience contradicts that claim. This is a sad record. It is the 76th time, as the member for Gatineau just mentioned, that the government has invoked closure.

That is a sad record that is even worse than the former Liberal government's record in trying to ram through legislation. Here is the real kicker. The government also has the record for most pieces of legislation rejected by the courts. Half a dozen pieces of legislation have been thrown out by the courts so far this year, because the government did not get it right. It has botched legislation. It has more product recalls than any government in Canadian history.

Now it is trying to tell us that somehow it has it right, even though we know, as the member for Gatineau just mentioned, that it refused any amendments from the opposition, except for one, and it refused the valuable testimony that was given by witnesses. The question is simple. How can we trust the government on this when it has so badly botched legislation to the point where the courts have rejected half a dozen pieces of legislation this year? Does the government intend to just get this rejected by the courts again? Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr.

Speaker, I know the member sometimes thinks he is auditioning for Yuk Yuk's or Just for Laughs , but this is a very serious issue. It is an issue that involves young people in particular in this country who are being exploited. It involves aspects of human trafficking. We heard testimony with respect to the extreme violence that often accompanies prostitution, the drug addiction, the extreme poverty, and the horrible conditions in which young people find themselves, women and girls generally, associated with the vulnerability of prostitution.

The member suggests that we somehow just talk about this further, that we should have the debate go on and on. Sadly, that has been the demand coming from the opposition, that we continue to have these debates for days on end. They put up the entire caucus to speak to the legislation. We do not have that time. We cannot afford that error in judgment to hold back fixing this situation that leaves people vulnerable. I know the member is chirping. He is shaking his head. I can hear it rattling from here. Mr. Peter Julian : Six or seven times it was rejected by the court. Hon. Peter MacKay : M.

Speaker, we have to move forward with this bill. It is necessary and it will protect people. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, since October, when we had the last Speech from the Throne, this is the 22nd time allocation motion. I look forward to the Speaker's ruling on my question of privilege. The repetitive and nearly constant use of time allocation violates our responsibilities and our ability to do our work here as parliamentarians. I have a small side comment for the Minister of Justice .

I find his gratuitous and ad hominem insults toward the members for Charlottetown and Burnaby—New Westminster to be unworthy of a minister of the crown. I would ask him this one simple question. If he is so sure that this bill is constitutional, which I and most legal experts do not believe it is, would he please table the legal opinion of the Department of Justice lawyers that Bill C-36 is in fact constitutional? Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, that is the usual feigned outrage from the member.

I will tell her what I have already said to the House, which is that we believe this legislation is constitutional and is charter-proof, of course. We believe the legislation answers the questions that were put forward and the issues that were identified quite clearly by the majority in Bedford. It was a decision that put the government in a position where we had to respond with this bill. We have done extensive consultation. We have been engaged in an active and genuine outreach to arrive at this place. We do rely on the very capable advice coming from lawyers within the Department of Justice.

Quite frankly, I am surprised that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would be so critical and so doubting of the advice coming from professional public servants, lawyers, and members of a fraternity of which she is also a member, and that she would suggest that this advice was somehow not being followed by the Department of Justice.

(1025) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my question is actually for the government House leader. The government House leader has now stood in his place and introduced time allocation more than any other House leader in the history of this Parliament, primarily because no other prime minister in the history of Canada has introduced closure more.

That is what time allocation is, a form of closure, limiting debate on important pieces of legislation, saying that the House of Commons will not allow members of Parliament, who want to get engaged in a debate, the opportunity to participate in that debate. The Conservatives continuously abuse, or they have a genuine lack of respect for, due process inside the House of Commons. My question to the government House leader is this. Why does the government House leader feel that using time allocation is the only way the government, this majority Reform/Conservative government, has of passing legislation?

Whatever happened to good faith negotiating with opposition House leaders so that we can get an orderly passing of a legislative agenda? That is the way it used to be; that is the way it should be. No government in the history— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. Minister of Justice. Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, I am not the government House leader. I am not privy to those discussions that take place when it comes to the legislative agenda. The member is relatively new to this House and perhaps was not here in previous parliaments when the Liberal Party was in government. I was there.

I sat where he is sitting today on the opposition benches and saw this method to move legislative forward quite frequently used by his party when it was in government. There is an element of hypocrisy in throwing the allegation that we are the only government that has ever used this method to move legislation through.

However, I come back to the principle of why I believe it is necessary to do so, and that is to put in place a legislative framework within the Criminal Code that will in fact protect people, vulnerable people, individuals who find themselves caught in this terrible dilemma of being in the sex trade where other opportunities, if they were afforded to them, would give them a much safer, healthier place to be. That is what I think is most important about the bill.

It is coupled with programs that will in fact help people to exit prostitution, afford them educational opportunities, training opportunities, housing, child care, the type of support that we believe leads to a healthier society, and certainly for those individuals it is an attempt to bring them to a much better life. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the issue on which the people who are watching need to stay focused is that legislation dealing with prostitution is a very serious issue that needs to be put forward in a manner that would pass the constitutional requirements of this country. We have a Minister of Justice who announced that the debate will be cut of at a time when numerous legal experts have questioned the constitutionality of this legislation.

Parliament is being asked to go along with the Potemkin democratic charade that we see with this House, where the people who are supposed to make legislation are being pushed to the side and the legislation forced through when all the signs are showing that this will fail once again at the Supreme Court. It comes down to the credibility of the government and the Minister of Justice , who time and time again have thought that the only solution for laws in this country is to butt heads with the Supreme Court and lose, time and time again.

If we are to deal with legislation in this country, we have a responsibility to do it properly through the House of Commons so that we ensure that all due diligence is done. All the language and insults that we have been hearing from the Minister of Justice against people who are speaking up on this will not change that fact. If it will not meet the constitutional requirements, then we are wasting our time in the House of Commons with this legislation.

(1030) Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may be a semi-talented musician; but I am not sure about his acting ability. This member accuses people of insults, but he is the daily court jester in that regard. The reality is that the bill— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order. Mr. Charlie Angus : Mr. Speaker, does the minister have to demean the House with his childish stunts, really, when we are talking about the constitutionality of legislation? It is pitiful.

The Deputy Speaker : I would invite the member to indicate where there is a point of order in that commentary. The hon. Minister of Justice may continue. He has about 30 seconds. Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is a very serious issue where vulnerable people are at risk. That is the reason we are moving post-haste to bring this legislation to fruition, so that the Criminal Code would afford those protections. It would allow not only those who find themselves in prostitution but those who support them to move forward in a way that will improve their lives.

That is why we are moving in this direction. We have had numerous debates. We had the opportunity at the committee to hear from the community and individuals, those most affected, in bringing forward their voice in a meaningful way. As far as the constitutionality goes, we have an obligation that we are not going to shirk in the government with respect to ensuring that those protections are there. We, of course, take expert advice from the Department of Justice. We have officials there who are very well versed in the application of the charter.

I would certainly rely on that advice in suggesting that this legislation is constitutionally sound. The Deputy Speaker : There is a point of order from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster . Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I wanted to cite O'Brien and Bosc, because this has been a repeated problem. The member for Timmins—James Bay just cited it, as did the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands . Under “Unparliamentary Language” on page 618, it says very clearly that personal attacks are “not in order” in the House of Commons.

The Minister of Justice has responded to every question with a personal attack, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you enforce what are clear guidelines that personal attacks of the nature that the Minister of Justice seems to be throwing around are simply inappropriate for the House of Commons, particularly in a matter of such seriousness as the bill we are discussing. The Deputy Speaker : I thank the member for the intervention. I have to say that the issue is when it becomes a personal attack. Certainly the language that has been used by the minister is not unparliamentary.

Whether it is a personal attack is always a question of the context in which we hear it. I would ask all sides in the House to be more careful with that type of approach, but I do not see at this stage that the minister has crossed the line. Resuming questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle . [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, wanting to judicialize a social problem is pretty weak. I have to wonder if the Conservatives thought about what it will cost society if this has to go before the Supreme Court again.

I would like to ask the minister if impact studies were done on how the justice system will be affected if this bill passes and becomes law, because if it works, we presume that hundreds, if not thousands of sex workers and their clients will wind up before the courts. Does the minister have any idea what the social cost will be and how clogged up the legal system could become if all these people have a criminal record? Did he study that issue?

(1035) Hon. Peter MacKay : Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is a legitimate question. [ English ] What we have obviously seen through this legislation is a situation where prostitution in an asymmetrical way would become illegal for the very first time, the act of prostitution and the purchasing of sexual services. We believe that this would put into the hands of the police the ability to enforce the law to protect those vulnerable persons who are drawn into this life. This is an approach that has been taken in other jurisdictions. We have looked, in particular, at many of the Nordic countries.

Interestingly, other countries, including France and parts of the United States, are pursuing this ongoing social problem, as he said, in a similar fashion. We obviously expect that there will be challenges. There will be opportunities for the courts to interpret this legislation, as they have. We are, in fact, responding to the Supreme Court decision. To those who suggest that we should go back to the courts in a proactive way and somehow consult them again, I would suggest that it would leave people more vulnerable, in the void and absence of a Criminal Code

section that would protect people. That would take time and it would only result in further advice that we have already received from the court in the Bedford decision. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the tone coming from the opposite side of the House is deeply disturbing. MPs are raising legitimate issues with regard to the time allocation on Bill C-36 . The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands posed a question to the minister, but the minister failed to respond directly to the request from the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The minister continues to cite that the Department of Justice has reviewed the current legislation and continues to assure the House that it is constitutional. Once again I ask the minister if he will table the opinion of the Department of Justice on the constitutionality of this bill, given the number of people who have raised very serious concerns that this bill may well face another court challenge? Hon. Peter MacKay : I have answered that question repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, both here and in committee.

The reality is that we receive advice from the Department of Justice on the constitutionality and charter compliance of every bill. This is done routinely. We receive advice across departments with regard to the constitutionality of legislation. It is a routine procedure. We have very capable lawyers within the Department of Justice, and I am surprised that members opposite are in essence casting aspersions on that advice and suggesting that somehow we as a government would misinterpret that advice or would somehow obscure the advice that we are getting. The members opposite continue to shout.

It is fine for them to insult the government or insult me in their questions; I accept that. It is part of the exchange. They are continuing to chirp away. That is fine. They are perfectly within their right in doing so, but this is really a serious debate. They should focus on serious questions and serious issues that matter to Canadians. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the reason that the members on this side of the House continue to seek legal opinions is that there is a glaring inconsistency between what the minister says about the constitutionality of the bill and what was said by virtually all other legal witnesses who testified at committee. It seems as though the only ones that hold a view consistent with the minister's are those on the payroll of the Department of Justice, yet we are not allowed to see their opinions. My question relates to the $175,000 Ipsos Reid survey that was withheld from the justice committee.

Given that parliamentarians have never heard a witness testify with respect to this poll, because it was withheld, and given that officials within the minister's department said that the poll contained useful information in crafting the bill, does the minister think it is fair to limit debate in the House to two more days when we have a piece of useful information that has never been examined by the committee?

(1040) Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, that is just factually incorrect, again, from the member for Charlottetown . That poll was released, in fact, and that information was made available at the statutory release time. I know the member may not want to accept that, but those are the rules that were in place when his party was in government and those are the rules that we respect with the release of public data information. The information has been released, it is in the public realm, it was available to members of the committee to examine, and it was but part of the information that we relied on.

The polling data information, in fact, contained far more than just specific information. In included public consultation on the subject of prostitution in the Bedford decision. It went across an array of other subject matter. For the member opposite to try to leave the impression that the information was withheld, that it was not examined by members of the committee is just untrue. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to use an analogy. During the Crimean War, there was a cavalry charge called the charge of the light brigade. It was a beautiful charge.

Never had anyone seen such excellent horsemen charge so quickly. It was an exemplary deployment. Unfortunately, the Russians were ready for the English, who were slaughtered. That is basically what we have here. The bill's intent—to protect people from crime, abuse and human trafficking—may be laudable, but unfortunately, as soon as it enters into force, it will be challenged, and probably successfully. That is the problem. I am afraid that if the government cuts off debate once again, objective criticism will not be heard and the legislation will be headed towards defeat once again.

Unfortunately, this defeat means that the people we want to protect will not be protected. That is probably this bill's main weakness. The Deputy Speaker : The hon. Minister of Justice has one minute to reply. [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, Half a league, half a league, Half a league onward I know what the member is trying to do in drawing this analogy, but the truth is that the bill has been examined. It has been before committee, both in the House and the Senate. It has received constitutional examination. We have the wisdom of the court in the Bedford decision.

We had 3,100 participants in an online consultation. We heard from some 90 experts with respect to the bill itself. I took

part in round tables at which I heard directly from individuals. We have had the benefit of debate in the House. Therefore, I am surprised by members opposite suggesting that we should continually abdicate our responsibility and go back to the courts again. They would have us refer another question to the courts rather than to the duly elected, democratically elected body that is obligated to properly examine legislation and make good decisions. We are not going to simply defer that responsibility to the courts. We are going to proceed with thoughtful, productive legislation.

That is what we have before the Parliament of Canada today. [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. [ English ] The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1125) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 233) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Young (Oakville) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 140 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bellavance Benskin Bevington Blanchette Boivin Borg Boulerice Brahmi Brison Brosseau Caron Casey Cash Chan Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Fortin Freeland Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Jacob Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May McCallum Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Scarpaleggia Scott Sgro Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Toone Turmel Valeriote Vaughan -- 108 PAIRED Nil The Deputy Speaker : I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to

[ Translation ] Energy Safety and Security Act Bill C-22--Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-22,

An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts , not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite all hon. members who wish to ask questions to please rise in their places so that I can determine how many questions we may have. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is now the 77th time in this Parliament that the Conservative government is shutting down debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation for Canadian taxpayers, for Canadian citizens, in the House. Bill C-22 is a bill that deals with nuclear liability and liability in the case of offshore oil and gas accidents.

At stake here is whether Canadian citizens ought to be on the hook for the cleanup of accidents, either in the offshore oil and gas industry or with respect to nuclear accidents. We know that in Fukushima it will cost $250 billion to $500 billion to clean up after that nuclear accident. However, here in this bill, the government is proposing that companies be on the hook for only $1 billion, meaning that taxpayers would be on the hook for the rest. This is a fundamentally important bill that goes to the very heart of the polluter pays principle.

However, we find that the Conservatives, clearly not very proud of their approach on this, want to shut down debate and want to make it impossible for us to take those views into account to produce a piece of legislation that actually protects Canadian citizens and our environment. The irony here is that in no other bill has it ever been this apparent that the Conservatives only shut down debate when people disagree with them.

There was no closure motion and there was no time allocation at second reading when we indicated that we would support the bill being sent to committee so that we could improve it and bring it up to international standards. At that point, they were fine with the debate, as long as we all said we were supportive of the bill. However, at third reading, we made it very clear that the bill, even after being amended in committee, fell far short of what Canadians deserve, and now the Conservatives are trying to shut down debate. It is absolutely outrageous.

I want the minister to stand up and agree today to give us the debate that Canadians deserve so that we can enact the polluter pays principle effectively.

(1130) Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity and the question from the member, who is the critic for natural resources. It is nice to be debating something in natural resources with her. In the spirit of consensus, we have some agreement on a couple of key points. The government agrees that this is a critical and very important piece of legislation with respect to offshore safety and liability, as well with respect to nuclear liability.

Furthermore, time allocation has given us an opportunity and in fact it is in place to ensure that adequate time is allocated for further debate and consideration of the bill. Therefore, we are moving toward some agreement on this. I would make the observation that all of our regimes with respect to nuclear, offshore, rail, pipeline, and marine safety have some important alignments, particularly with respect to the principle of polluter pays. On the more specific point of nuclear liability, I would just point out to my colleague that the current stage of the legislation is unacceptable. It is time for change.

This was set in 1976 and has never changed. This piece of legislation and its amendments take into consideration, among other things, an amount that is sufficient to deal with the consequences of controlled release, and for a reasonable and fair assessment of insurers' capacities in this regard. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, once again I rise, and I have done so on dozens of occasions, in regard to time allocation. The Prime Minister and the majority Reform-Conservative government have been very abusive in terms of the way in which they pass legislation through the House of Commons.

There are a couple of things I think Canadians should note about this majority mentality that the current government seems to have, and that is that it does not necessarily support debate inside the House of Commons. This is now the 75th time allocation motion, which is as bad as these massive budget bills where the Conservatives pack a bunch of other pieces of legislation within a budget bill, which is somewhat allocated in terms of time in and of itself in terms of its passage.

From those massive budget bills to time allocation, the lack of respect the Prime Minister has for due process, for allowing members of Parliament to thoroughly debate all of the legislative and budget measures that happen here in Canada, is truly amazing. It is disrespectful. My question is for the government House leader as he is the one who has brought forward the motion that we are debating today.

Why does the government feel that the only way it can pass its legislative agenda, unlike any other government in the history of our country, is to continue to rely on time allocation, preventing members of Parliament from fully engaging on what are important issues to all Canadians?

(1135) Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and his important exercise in word count in this place. I would also point out that it is quite likely he is standing in a glass house when he talks about omnibus bills, but we will debate that at another time. I think what is important here is to understand that the purpose of time allocation is to ensure that adequate time is allocated for further debate and the consideration of a bill. It is a tool that creates certainty.

The benefits include greater certainty for all members in organizing their affairs and business to accommodate votes. It also helps folks interested in this, from the media to citizens, to improve their ability to inform and be informed as the general public. Therefore, time allocation in this sense is really a scheduling device. On the importance of the debate within either time allocation or on this important piece of legislation, as I said earlier, we agree. This is an important bill that has gone through its due process.

It needed to be updated and would now reflect an appropriate and responsible legislative framework for offshore and nuclear liability regimes. As well, it is an exercise to make this area consistent with other areas of liability, as I mentioned, pipeline safety, marine safety and the like. Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in a previous answer, the minister talked about alignment when it comes to polluter pays. I wonder if he could speak to the proposed nuclear regime in Bill C-22 and how it aligns with that in other countries. Hon.

Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the very helpful and supportive parliamentary secretary, for her important work on this file in particular. She raised two points in her comments. I mentioned in previous responses the importance for consistency across all of our liability regimes for the purpose of protecting Canadians. This piece with respect to nuclear liability would put Canada's liability limit among the highest internationally. There is a mix among countries with respect to nuclear civil liability limits.

The United Kingdom, France, Spain and other European nations are moving to an operator threshold of $1 billion and some non-European nations, for example, South Korea, South Africa and Argentina have lesser amounts. In addition to the alignment exercise here domestically, the $1 billion liability limit is consistent with countries around the world. They will be looking to Canada ultimately for its leadership on establishing, by legislation, a reasonable and acceptable threshold for liability that is anchored by the safety of Canadians and our communities. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, what the minister said about the government shutting down debate on this incredibly important legislation would make George Orwell proud. We should be thankful that the government is shutting down debate because it brings certainty to the debate. We should be thankful that time allocation has been imposed for the 77th time by the government. Canadians should be thrilled by the democratic richness within the Conservative Party for giving them certainly over how little time we will talk about important legislation. We are not grateful, we are not thankful and it is not right.

To prove that this process is wrong and anti-democratic, I will reference the Conservatives when they were in opposition. When the Liberals did the exact same thing, the Conservatives made the exact same call that the Liberals were being bullies and abusing Parliament. That is on the process, so it is hypocritical for Conservatives to now say this is a great tactic on the actual substance of what we are talking about. The New Democrats fully believe in the polluter pays principle.

By the government setting a limited liability, it says that all damages from a nuclear accident above that limited liability would be picked up by the public. Other businesses do not enjoy such limited liability. This would become a subsidy to certain industries. They would only have to carry so much insurance because the rest of the cost would be picked up by the public, and the cost could be extreme, into tens of billions of dollars, as we saw with Fukushima. The minister is right in saying that this needed updating. That is absolutely true.

However, why, when we only update this kind of legislation once in a generation, go to half measures? Why not bring in a bill that would establish a full polluter pays principle so Canadians would not be left on the hook for somebody else's misconduct that could cost billions upon billions of dollars? For the member to suggest that we should all be thankful that the government has shut down debate is bulldozer politics from the Conservatives. It does not work when it comes to this. It does not work when it comes to pipelines. Canadians will reject this come 2015.

(1140) Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is always at his best when he keeps some of the more aggressive words and tones out of the debate with me personally, but notwithstanding that, there is some substance to his question and it merits further discussion. The liability regime has two important aspects. Fault and negligence still have an unlimited liability component, and that is important. With respect to unlimited liability of the operator as is done in other countries, this has been done not necessarily with success.

The practice of the capacity for operators to compensate for damages is somewhat limited. We have gone to great lengths in crafting and establishing a threshold that reflects a modern reality and reasoned threshold. We all agree that Canada is in need of dramatic change in terms of its monetary value, maintain a fault to negligence regime for liability that is unlimited and move to a threshold that based on facts and experiences around the world would be reasonable and achievable. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, although the environment is a pressing issue, the government has not proven to be responsible in this area as it shirked its responsibilities at the UN climate summit. When it comes to the environment, the government is shirking its responsibilities, and I would like to understand its logic. This week, once again, the government did not take responsibility with regard to the moratorium on Cacouna and protecting the St. Lawrence River. It should at least be able to conduct scientific studies.

What is the logic of the government, which is shirking its environmental responsibilities and trying to change the rules this morning by putting an end to debate? Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there is any logic to that question. (1145) [ English ] In addition, I am not sure there was anything in that question pertinent to either time allocation or the substantive dimensions of what is contained in the bill.

Notwithstanding that, it is important then to make the point that this is an opportunity for us all to move forward on legislation with respect to offshore nuclear liability that is modernized. We have some agreement there. It also reflects appropriate responsible thresholds for the offshore and nuclear sectors. Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as has been underlined, this is the 77th time now that the government has moved time allocation, in effect limiting debate on incredibly important issues about which the public is very concerned.

When we talk about the nuclear liability component of the bill and the minister's claim that it is modernized, to a certain extent it is I suppose. When we start with a liability component that has not been updated in something like 40 years, anything is an improvement to that. However, does it hit the mark? Absolutely not. In Toronto, for example, my riding has a nuclear fuel facility that most of the residents who live near it had no idea was there.

The reason I bring this up is because it speaks to transparency and the openness and willingness to engage the public in these important public safety, public policy debates. That is what we are supposed to do in this place and that is why we reject the continual use of time allocation to limit debate on these incredibly important issues. I would ask the minister to respond to the thousands of people in my community in Toronto who were shut out of the process around the Line 9 pipeline consultation. They did not know there was a nuclear fuel facility in their community.

How does all that square with a government that does not want to fully debates these issues? There is a pattern here and I would like the minister to speak to that pattern. Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to that pattern. It sounds like that party has a member of Parliament who is not engaged with its issues and, furthermore, that he may lack a basic understanding of provincial and federal jurisdictions with respect to these. There are 19 commercial power reactors in Canada, some of them located in a higher concentration in Ontario.

Part of his question would be well-suited for our provincial counterparts. I am sure they would be happy to respond to some of that awareness piece, and I am sure he could facilitate a round table with his constituents who are focused like a laser on these issues. However, we do agree on something. Because I am a consensus builder, I look thematically from each and every question where we agree. We seem to share one prevailing important piece, and that is the profile, the exercise of building public confidence is tremendously important.

It means, particularly where it is relevant to his particular riding, assuring Canadians that the government is taking the right steps forward with legislation that reflects a modern regime for liability and for safety, in the case of offshore nuclear, for the purposes of this debate, and a whole host of other legislation around pipeline safety, marine safety and the like. We see the alignment, see how it is world-leading in many element's and celebrate that.

If there are more focused group discussions from his region and they are relevant for a debate in the context of this chamber, being the federal government, I would be happy to talk about those.

(1150) Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to ask the minister a question. I believe the opposition has left out a lot of facts and a lot of significant points in the debate today. We are talking about liability and risks, and one of the risks is nuclear. There are some vast differences between Fukushima and the reactors we have in Canada. We have CANDU reactors here that are heavy water reactors. Japan was using light water reactors that used enriched uranium.

Then, if we look at the geography of the location of reactors, and let us talk about Ontario specifically, they are all on the Great Lakes, where there is no high risk for tsunamis or earthquakes. If we take a look at Fukushima, it is right on the ocean, right in a fault line. Also, the design of the safety components for the reactors at Fukushima and the CANDU reactors are vastly different When we talk about liability, we talk about insurance, and we have to face the facts and the risks. They have been working on this for years. They have it right. Would the minister expand on this? Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr.

Speaker, that sounds like a member of Parliament who is not just focused and disciplined on becoming a subject matter expert on key components of this, but who has also engaged his community, or his communities, with some deference to what that means to his constituents. He was right to point out Fukushima as a template for some of the discussion in terms of the elements of this legislation.

A post-Fukushima review by a task force created by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission confirmed in October 2011 that Canadian plants were robust, had a strong design relying upon multiple layers of defence, safety measures were being augmented based upon the review to further reduce the likelihood of an incident from external events and to increase the effectiveness of emergency management measurements. I agree with the member that the NDP is on a pretty consistent fact-free diet when we put these debates out on the floor.

However, those important facts suggest to me that not only is this legislation important, responsible and reflects the modern reality of nuclear energy in Canada and around the world, but it has been done very thoughtfully in a scientific factual basis that respects and understands the state of nuclear energy in Canada. Mr. Andrew Cash : Mr. Speaker, a short while ago, the minister suggested that I did not quite have my facts right and he said that the NDP were on a fact-free diet. The fact is that nuclear fuel facilities are a federally regulated sector.

I would invite the minister to come to a town hall meeting in my riding. In fact, I did have a town hall meeting in my riding and I asked your predecessor to come and he chose not to. I welcome you. I think you have opened your arms— The Deputy Speaker : The member has been here long enough to know to direct the questions and comments to the Chair and not to individual members in the House. Mr. Andrew Cash : Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I would just like to ask the minister if he will come to Toronto to a public meeting on nuclear fuel safety and pipeline safety.

He would be most welcome, and he would probably meet a lot of people that he has not had the pleasure of encountering before. Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, the member does not get to get me on that one. Obviously, we are well aware of the federal government's responsibility with respect to nuclear liability in the sector as a whole. I can assure him of that. His question earlier, if he reflected on it, dealt with the operations of some specific plants and what impacts they may have in his community. I simply encouraged him to engage his constituents more meaningfully.

I am happy to receive reports and correspondence from him in those regards. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to at least commend the Minister of Natural Resources for conducting himself in a dignified manner so far, unlike the Minister of Justice earlier today. The minister is right to point out that there are points of agreement—or consensus, in his terms—and that those are around the very critically important nature of this legislation and the fact that the legislation needs updating.

Beyond that, what I am detecting very clearly in the course of this discussion over the 77th effort by the government to invoke time allocation in the House is some very substantive debate over the terms of the legislation. However, it is the points of disagreement that are emerging from this debate over time allocation that weigh against the minister's arguments in favour of time allocation today. I would ask him to please tell the House if he, as a consensus seeker, agrees with me that this is in fact a substantive debate about the legislation that we are engaged in here and now in the House.

Would he agree that the nature of this substantive disagreement over the terms of the legislation suggest that he should change his mind and withdraw the motion for time allocation on this bill?

(1155) Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, for the nature of our fairly regular conversations on a number of issues, and for the candour and thoughtfulness with which he puts questions to me. I hope my responses live up to that standard. I can say that we also deal with continual attempts by the opposition to delay and obstruct certain bills, this one in particular.

Further to his more substantive question, beyond time allocation but sort of addressing it, I can tell him that as he will well know, this bill was studied at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for an amount of time that was agreed to by all members. Furthermore, I would suggest to the member that if he reflected on the testimony contained in those processes, he would see that there was input from a broad group of witnesses, including department officials, industry, and environmental groups, including testimony from Greenpeace and Ecojustice.

In particular, the nuclear portion of this bill has been studied extensively in past Parliaments. That should not get in the way of an absolutely modern, up-to-the-minute debate about this issue, and that debate has taken place quite recently. It is time to move forward with this modern piece of legislation. The Deputy Speaker : I understand that there is some irritation coming from the government side. The round of questions for this type of motion gives an absolute priority to the opposition parties, but there have been two questions that I allocated to the government side.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherbrooke . [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it seems our colleague is having some difficulty understanding the concept of parliamentary debate. He seems to think that we are trying to delay the bill just because we want to debate it. All we want is to hold a democratic debate in this institution since that is its reason for being. The fact that the opposition wants to debate a bill does not necessarily mean that it wants to further delay it. We simply want to do our job here in the House.

If I am not mistaken, like me, my colleague was not a member of Parliament before 2006. At that time, his government, which was then in opposition, was strongly opposed to this type of time allocation motion, and Conservative members rose to speak out against them. What has changed since 2006? [ English ] Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I can let the member know that I have been here since 2008, have sat on several standing committees, and have participated at great length on a number of matters here in this place.

It is a source of pride for me that I understand and put great emphasis on what parliamentary debate means, so I will take no lessons from him on that. [ Translation ] However, I can say that Canadians gave our government the mandate to focus on job creation and economic growth. They expect our government to make decisions that are in line with its commitments, and that is what the government is doing with this bill.

(1200) The Deputy Speaker : It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. [ English ] The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1240) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 234) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Sopuck Sorenson Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 137 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Aubin Ayala Bélanger Benskin Bevington Blanchette Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Caron Casey Chan Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Fortin Freeland Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Jacob Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May McCallum Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Rathgeber Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Toone Turmel Valeriote Vaughan -- 110 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-41,

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-41. Second reading Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today, it is my great pleasure to address this House about the benefits of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. Specifically, I would like to highlight how this agreement would benefit every single region of this country, thereby increasing prosperity for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is also my pleasure to share my time with the member for Calgary Northeast .

I would first like to emphasize that our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement, Canada's first agreement with an Asian market, would create thousands of new jobs in Canada and would provide Canadian business and workers with a gateway to Asia, enhancing our global competitiveness. South Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trading partner. It is the world's 15th-largest economy. It is a priority market under our government's global market action plan.

In 2013 alone, Canada's South Korea two-way merchandise trade reached over $10.8 billion. Moreover, South Korea is a gateway to the vibrant Asia-Pacific region. As the fourth-largest economy in Asia, with a sophisticated market, it offers strategic access to a regional and global value chain that has become increasingly important for business to succeed. Unfortunately, Canadian businesses are currently at a disadvantage in this very key Asian market compared to their main competitors in the U.S. and Europe.

As a result of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement and the Korea-EU free trade agreement, which came into effect in 2012 and 2011 respectively, Canadian companies have in fact been losing ground to U.S. and EU companies that are already benefiting from their preferential access to the South Korean market. In order to restore a level playing field for Canadian business, Canadian officials have worked tirelessly to negotiate the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, which is a state-of-the-art, ambitious, and comprehensive agreement that covers virtually every facet of modern commerce.

It is only this Conservative government that can deliver an agreement like this to Canadians. Every Canadian knows that the NDP have systematically and consistently voted against trade. This, in the face of the fact that it is clear that trade creates jobs, economic growth, and economic security for hard-working Canadian families. Even worse is the shameful record the Liberals have on neglecting trade. The Liberals took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets.

Canadians remember the last time the Liberals tried to talk seriously about trade. That was when they campaigned to rip up the North American free trade agreement. At the core of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is the elimination of tariffs on virtually all trade between Canada and South Korea. Immediately upon implementation, over 88% of Canada's current exports would be duty-free. Once the agreement is fully implemented, South Korea would remove duties on 100% of non-agricultural exports and 97% of agricultural exports.

This is a fantastic outcome for Canadians, especially given that Korea's current tariffs are, on average, three times higher. I would now like to turn to key sectors and substantial regional benefits of the agreement. We have ensured that each region has something to gain from early implementation of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. Let me start with agriculture and agri-food products, which have been heavily protected in South Korea. Once the agreement is fully implemented, tariffs would be eliminated on 97% of Canada's agricultural exports.

This includes strong outcomes for key product groups such as beef, pork, canola oil, barley malt, pulses, animal feeds, fur skins, soya beans, fruit and vegetables, and many processed foods.

(1245) This is good news for farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers across Canada, including the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, as their products would become more competitive in the rapidly growing South Korean market. In the Prairies, for example, the agricultural and agri-food sector is a key driver of economic activity. Saskatchewan, Alberta, and my home province of Manitoba stand to benefit especially from enhanced market access for products such as beef, pork, grain, oilseeds, pulses, canola oil, barley malt, and forages.

I am happy to report that Canada also achieved an ambitious outcome for fish and seafood products. South Korea would eliminate all of its tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood products, some immediately. The overall outcome for fish and seafood companies compares favourably with KORUS, including lobster, which is Canada's top export in this sector along with hagfish, halibut, and certain Pacific salmon. The list continues.

With regard to forestry and value-added wood products, South Korea would eventually eliminate all of its tariffs on Canadian exports including softwood and hardwood lumber, particle board, and many others. Some 85% of Canadian exports would be duty-free upon entry into force. These products are of particular export interest to British Columbia, the Prairies, and Quebec. Through the elimination of tariffs, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement would provide improved access and new opportunities in the South Korean market.

For other industrial goods, which include aerospace, autos and auto products, rail, information technology, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, to name a few, over 96% of Canadian exports would be duty free immediately. That is 96%. Also, 99% would be duty-free within five years and the remaining 1% would be covered off in 10 years. Manufacturers from Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and the Prairies are expected to enjoy notable benefits in this regard. For example in Quebec alone, some 295,000 hard-working Quebecers and their families depend on the industrial goods sector for their livelihood.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would bring additional opportunities for Quebec's industrial goods sectors such as aircraft parts, cosmetics, and metals. The benefits do not stop here. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would also achieve strong outcomes in services, business mobility, investment, and government procurement, all of which are on par or better than what was achieved with South Korea in either the U.S. or the EU agreement. The agreement would provide enhanced market access for Canadian service providers in such areas as the professional environment and business services.

With regard to business mobility, Canada obtained the most ambitious provisions from South Korea in any of its free trade agreements, which would allow for freer movement of highly skilled professionals between the two countries by providing Canadian professionals with preferential access to the South Korean market. As a chartered accountant, soon to become a CPA, I think it is important to note that in my profession alone there are almost 190,000 CPAs who would now have access to this bigger market.

In addition, the investment chapter, which includes extensive protection for investors, would provide a more transparent and predictable framework of rules. The investment

chapter would facilitate the continuation of South Korean foreign direct investment into Canada's provinces and territories, including in the energy sectors, thereby contributing to their continued growth. In conclusion, this free trade agreement with Korea would enhance market access and level the playing field for Canada vis-à-vis its competitors across the board, benefiting Canadians in every province and every territory. This would lead to more Canadian exports, more jobs for Canadian families, and more prosperity for our economy and for our children.

Stakeholders have given us clear signals that early entry into force of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is vital to ensuring Canada's competitive position in South Korea. This desire to have the agreement enter into force as quickly as possible has been echoed by many key industry stakeholders. Our government is moving quickly to answer the call of Canadian business and workers. We are here to create jobs, to create growth, and to achieve long-term prosperity for all our children.

(1250) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Before we go to questions and comments, I see the hon. member for Vancouver East is rising. Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the member who just spoke for interjecting just before the questions and comments. However, I want to rise on a brief point of order and let the House know that when we were debating the topic of the missing and murdered indigenous women on Friday, September 19, I noted in my comments that I met with the Minister of Justice in 1999. In actual fact, I was in error of the year.

I did meet with the Minister of Justice, but I believe the year was 2002. I have tried to go back and look but it is hard to find a calendar from that year. However, I did want to correct this in the record because it was not in 1999, but a bit later and I believe it was 2002. I just want to note that for the record. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East, and in particular, for bringing this to the attention of the House in short order relative to when the comments were offered. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan. [ Translation ] Ms.

Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for her speech on Bill C-41,

an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea . The NDP takes the time to properly examine every free trade agreement proposed. We use very specific criteria to determine whether a free trade agreement is satisfactory or not. The NDP will support Bill C-41 on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea at second reading. There are certain criteria that we are feel are important when examining such agreements.

The first is whether the proposed trade partner respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards and Canadian values. Next, we want to know whether the proposed partner's economy is of significant or strategic value to Canada and whether the terms of the proposed agreement are satisfactory. Since this free trade agreement meets these criteria, or at least appears to, we are going to support this bill at second reading. Ms. Joyce Bateman : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. NDP member for her remarks. I am pleased for all Canadians that the NDP decided to support this agreement.

It is a very important agreement for the future, for job creation, for economic growth and for long-term prosperity. I am quite impressed that the NDP decided to support our bill. (1255) [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, British Columbia, my home province, is closer to Korea than any other part of Canada. We have many people who have immigrated and are now proudly Canadian. In my own riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, we have cherries, we have wine and we have many other agri-foods that could go to Korea.

When I say that my constituents are very happy to see this particular free trade agreement, I hear massive support in my riding for it. I do know that in the member's previous life she was a business professional. This agreement, because it is a modern free trade agreement, allows for professionals from Canada to go and do business in Korea and offer their services there. Does the member think there are many opportunities for other business professionals to be able to reach out and compete globally in places like Korea? Ms. Joyce Bateman : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right.

This free trade agreement links us to the 15th-largest economy. It links Canada to a world of opportunity. Jayson Myers, the president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters Association said, “Asia's rich markets are the next frontier for Canada in our quest to...eliminate tariffs and non-trade barriers to trade investment”. He talked about elimination of tariffs and non-trade barriers. I just want to commend the work of the hon. parliamentary secretary in his efforts to break down internal barriers for the wonderful Okanagan wineries in his riding.

With his work and through his efforts, we will not only benefit in selling that great wine to the Korean market and other international markets, but also in selling it to internal markets in Canada. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a comment, then a question. First, New Democrats will be supporting this trade deal. The way we look at all trade proposals is based on some fundamental principles. One of those principles is about reciprocity. For example, is there built within the trade deal a reciprocal agreement with the country we will be trading with?

Unlike the China investor protection agreement, which is not reciprocal in its nature and takes 31 years to get out of the agreement, this has other provisions that give us greater assurance that the deal would be fair for Canadians. My question is this. Obviously, for certain sectors in any trade deal there are potential winners and potential industries that would be hurt. The winners seem clear. They are agriculture, forestry and fishing products. As a representative from northern British Columbia, those are important. However, there has been concern raised about the auto sector.

Already, Korean auto manufacturing is coming into Canada through the United States and Mexico, with new plant builds planned there for Korean automakers. Does my hon. colleague know of any efforts by the Canadian government to encourage or ensure that Korean automakers are also planning to set up new shops in the Canadian market, so that we can have those value-added jobs created here in Canada as a potential result of this trade deal? Ms. Joyce Bateman : Mr.

Speaker, I truly do support my hon. colleague opposite and the NDP's support for the bill because it is these kinds of free trade agreements that are going to make an enormous difference for the prosperity of our children, our communities and Canadian workers or business people. It is so important that we support this. We have to level the playing field, because we have to catch up in this very important Asian market. The reciprocity the member referred to is absolutely entrenched in the bill. I specifically compliment the officials who worked with the government on this incredible trade opportunity.

This is state of the art. It is a very ambitious and comprehensive agreement and there is reciprocity in every facet. This is about modern commerce.

(1300) Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government understands the importance of trade to our economy. We know that trade is responsible for one out of every five jobs in Canada and accounts for 64% of our country's annual income. Trade is the cornerstone of the Canadian economy, and Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders and into new markets for economic opportunities that grow Canada's exports and investments. This is why our Conservative government is delivering on its commitment in the Speech from the Throne to expand trade with Asia.

I am pleased to speak today on the importance of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, or CKFTA. This landmark achievement, Canada's first free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region, is a game changer. It will provide new access for Canadian businesses and workers to South Korea, which is the fourth largest economy in Asia with an annual GDP of $1.3 trillion and a high-growth market of 50 million potential customers. South Korea is a major economic player in its own right and a key market for Canada.

It is Canada's seventh largest overall merchandise trading partner, and third largest in Asia after China and Japan. Two-way trade between Canada and South Korea totalled more than $10.8 billion in 2013. Canadians recognize Asia's growing economic strength and believe that closer economic ties with Asia are necessary for Canada's future prosperity. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is projected to add thousands of Canadian jobs to the economy, increase Canadian exports to South Korea by 32% and boost Canada's economy by $1.7 billion.

South Korea also serves as a gateway for Canadian businesses and workers to the Asia-Pacific region. As a result of this agreement, Canadian companies will be able to use South Korea as a key base for expanding their presence in Asia and to access its regional and global supply chains. This Canada-Korea free trade agreement creates a mechanism to increase the already substantial people-to-people connections shared by South Koreans and Canadians.

I would like to discuss in some detail the concrete and real benefits that will be available to Canadian businesses, from coast to coast to coast, after the implementation of this agreement. Unlike the NDP who loves to oppose our trade agreements, our Conservative government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness, which in turn adversely affects middle-class Canadian families.

The CKFTA will cover virtually all aspects of commercial activities between Canada and South Korea, including trade in goods and services, investment, government procurement, non-tariff barriers, environment and labour co-operation, and other areas of economic activity. The agreement increases potential market access for Canadian exporters and investors from every province and territory, and it would remove non-tariff barriers that hinder trade.

Additionally, under this agreement, Canada has secured greater opportunities related to temporary entry for business persons than those enjoyed by South Korea's other free trade agreement partners. This will provide an advantage to Canadian business persons needing to move between the two countries to conduct business. Investment is a key component of the bilateral economic relationship between Canada and South Korea. It is an area that has great potential for growth, which is assisted by the increased certainty and transparency created by the CKFTA.

Canada will be able to attract more investments, such as the 2013 opening of Samsung's first Canadian research and development centre in Vancouver, which focuses on the development of Samsung's enterprise security solutions and provides technical support for the company's diverse customer base. This centre already employs 60 people and more employment is expected. There will also be many exciting opportunities in agriculture, fish and seafood, forestry products and the industrial goods sector. South Korea imports 70% of its food, representing a $20 billion market per year.

However, Canadian agricultural exports to South Korea currently face high tariffs, which average over 50%. This places Canadian exporters at a serious disadvantage with their competitors, notably the United States, when trying to access the lucrative South Korean market.

(1305) With this agreement, Canadian businesses like Conestoga Meat Packers, a co-operative of 150 southern Ontario family farmers who have been producing premium-quality fresh pork for more than 30 years, will have the opportunity to be on equal footing with their competitors in the South Korean market. The elimination of tariffs on fresh, chilled, and frozen pork will give companies like Conestoga the opportunity for continued company growth, an integral component of their business plans.

The CKFTA would provide Prince Edward Island-based Cavendish Farms with a golden opportunity to grow their presence in the South Korean market and to expand in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. While current South Korean duties range from 18% to a staggering 304% for potato products, the CKFTA would provide tariff elimination on most potato products, thereby helping to level the playing field with South Korea's other FTA partners. This means jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

On fish and seafood products, which are the economic mainstay of approximately 1,500 communities in rural and coastal Canada, the CKFTA contains an ambitious outcome that would eliminate 100% of South Korean tariffs once the agreement is fully implemented. Companies like Nova Scotia-based Clearwater Seafoods, North America's largest vertically integrated harvester, processor, and distributor of premium shellfish, will benefit from this strong CKFTA outcome. In fact, we are already getting a taste of what increased seafood trade with South Korea will look like.

Shortly after the announcement of the conclusion of negotiations on the CKFTA, Korean Air Cargo launched weekly service to South Korea from Halifax and is expected to transport a minimum of 40,000 kilograms of live lobster over the course of the summer. This would benefit Atlantic Canadians, as it would help to develop the South Korean market for fresh Canadian lobsters and provide a gateway for exports to other Asian markets. South Korea imports $500 billion worth of industrial goods every year, including aerospace products.

Canada's aerospace industry, which consistently ranks as one of Canada's top manufacturing sectors, will benefit from the immediate elimination of tariffs on turbo propellers, turbojet and propeller parts, and ground-flying training equipment. Tariffs on all aerospace goods would be eliminated upon implementation. For Montreal-based CAE, a global leader in modelling, simulation, and training for civil aviation and defence, this agreement is very welcome news.

CAE employs approximately 8,000 people in close to 30 countries and offers civil aviation and military and helicopter training services worldwide, including in South Korea. CAE is a prime example of Canadian companies that have recognized the value of South Korea as a regional base to serve clients in the Asian market. This type of investment would only increase once the CKFTA is implemented. As we can see, the benefits to Canada and Canadians from this agreement are robust, multi-sectoral, and significant.

Being well positioned in the Asia-Pacific region is critical to Canada's prosperity, and this agreement is a major step in realizing the untapped potential in Asia. Of course, it is shameful that this past summer the NDP trade critic protested alongside well-known radical anti-trade activists, such as The Council of Canadians and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, at an anti-trade protest.

Despite all the evidence that trade creates jobs, economic growth, and economic security for hard-working Canadian families, the NDP, together with its professional activist group allies, is ideologically opposed to trade. Just as bad are the Liberals, who, during their 13 long years in government, completely neglected trade and completed only three free trade agreements, compared to our 43 free trade agreements. The Liberals took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets.

(1310) To close, I am happy to hear that both parties have now decided to support this bill. I am very optimistic that they have learned from the past and that they will continue to support our trade agenda. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do our homework for every free trade agreement. We studied this agreement with South Korea and we decided to support it even though the agreement is not perfect. We believe it can produce rather significant economic spinoffs for Canada.

However, the Conservative government negotiates free trade agreements with all sorts of countries, including undemocratic ones such as Honduras, where journalists and workers are murdered. In committee, witnesses told us that the free trade agreement with Honduras would only make matters worse when it comes to the serious human rights problems in that undemocratic country. Is there a country the Conservatives do not want to negotiate a free trade agreement with? What are the criteria? Will they do their homework next time? [ English ] Mr. Devinder Shory : Mr.

Speaker, it is on record that the NDP has a long, very proud history of being anti-trade. Some people call it the “no development party”. I understand why the New Democrats find it difficult to find points to criticize in this free trade agreement. We, the Conservative Party of Canada, know that trade is good for Canadians and good for families. It creates jobs. It will bring prosperity, and prosperity tackles so many other problems. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Calgary Northeast .

He mentioned the urgent need to ratify the agreement, as did his colleague from Winnipeg South Centre . However, the need would not have been so urgent if the government had been more serious about the negotiations, instead of focusing on countries such as Honduras that have less strategic value. If the government had focused on this agreement, we probably could have signed it sooner and devoted the necessary resources to it. I am not the only one to say so. In fact, this was also mentioned in an internal memo at the international trade department. I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that.

Why did the government spend so much time negotiating agreements with much less strategic value, as it did with Honduras and Panama, instead of devoting all its resources to more significant agreements such as the one with South Korea? [ English ] Mr. Devinder Shory : Mr. Speaker, that ratifies what I said earlier about how it is very hard for the NDP to support a trade agreement. We can see from the comments that my colleague made how many heels the New Democrats are digging in, how deeply they are digging them, and how hard it is for them to come out and say that they are very proud to support trade.

It is amazing.They talk about the criteria, and of course we have the criteria. This side of the House understands that we have to negotiate to the point to make sure that we get what is in the best interest of Canada, Canadian workers, Canadian businesses, and Canadian families. That is why negotiations were very important. We will not sign any agreement if it is not for a good cause and good for Canadians.

(1315) Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech and particularly for his last intervention, in which he talked about trade being good for all Canadians. Many people may not know that South Korea sells steel rebar, which is used to create buildings. Lowering tariffs would reduce housing costs for people in people in British Columbia, something that I am very supportive of. The member mentioned the Samsung centre and how it is looking to expand, hire more Canadians, and expand operations in British Columbia.

These are great benefits. The NDP has this issue with countries like Honduras. However, in Okanagan—Coquihalla, we have cattle ranchers. Some operations are larger and some are smaller. When we have multiple markets, including larger markets like South Korea and smaller markets like Honduras, does it not make sense to the member that all Canadian producers, whether they are smaller operations or larger operations, should be able to find niche markets or large markets and get the best value and the best price? I ask the member if he could clarify whether my thinking is correct. Mr. Devinder Shory : Mr.

Speaker, diversification is important. Smaller and bigger markets are both important, because they provide opportunities to all kinds of businesses, specifically small and medium-size enterprises, to open new gates—even floodgates, I would say. As I mentioned in my speech, tariffs on potatoes can be up to a staggering 304%. That tariff would be eliminated. Imagine the opportunities we Canadians and Canadian businesspeople could have in a market like South Korea, which is projected to increase exports by 32% and boost the Canadian economy by $1.7 billion annually. [ Translation ] Mr.

Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. I will have the opportunity to speak at length about why the NDP believes, all things considered, that it can support this agreement with a democratic country whose economy has high standards. I am not saying that everything is perfect, because that is not the case. If the members on this side of the House had been at the negotiating table, we could have done things differently. Before I get into the compliments, I want to start with some criticism.

Our colleagues opposite like claiming that they are the champions of all things trade. However, the data on this topic shows a different story. Since 2000, Canada's trade balance has experienced a sharp decline and it has been consistently declining since 2004. To be more specific, we went from 5.75% of the GDP to a deficit of 0.61% of the GDP. I do not understand how the government can seriously claim that it is effective and committed to trade when it gets such poor results for our exporters. I am getting off topic. Let me get back to Korea.

I remind members that Canada is lagging behind compared to other countries and major economies in terms of trade with Asia Pacific countries, and in particular Korea. While Canadian companies had to wait for the never-ending negotiations to come to a close, the United States and the European Union had already signed free trade agreements with South Korea in 2012. Over these two years, our exporters lost 30% of their share of the South Korean market.

What is worse is that the government dragged its feet and chose to sign bad agreements with trade partners that have questionable human rights records, such as Honduras, which we have already talked about. I am bringing this up today because this very issue came up in internal memos at the international trade department. It is rather absurd to see that the government insists on negotiating agreements that legitimize bad working-condition and human rights practices, when doing a better job with Korea would have helped our exporters much more quickly. Our exports to Honduras in 2013 were just over $43 million.

With Korea, we are talking about $3 billion a year in potential exports. I have some serious questions about the government's priorities. Why wait 10 years to negotiate with South Korea? Why give priority to less developed economies and smaller trading partners? I have other questions as well. What did our exporters lose because of this delay? How many jobs could have been created or maintained? We will not get a trade policy that works and helps our economy, our companies and, especially, our workers by signing any old agreement and then bragging about how many of them there are afterwards.

Instead, we should be signing good agreements and supporting our exporters. This government likes to paint the NDP as a party that is fundamentally against trade and supports blind protectionism. Therefore, I will once again try to explain to the Conservatives the criteria that the NDP has developed and that shape its position on international trade. Perhaps it will clarify things. Unlike the other major parties in the House, we carefully analyze each agreement, then we support or reject it based on its merit.

The criteria we use are completely logical and legitimate and reflect our social responsibilities as a developed country. The first criterion concerns respect for democracy, human rights, environmental values and labour condition standards. Based on this criterion, South Korea has made significant progress since the dictatorship fell in 1987. It is now a democratic and multi-party political regime that supports freedom of expression in a relatively diverse society. In terms of labour standards, sweatshops are not common practice, far from it.

Wages are adequate, and labour movements and unions are not openly suppressed or delegitimized. I believe that my colleague said it before me, but for information purposes, South Korea rates 15th on the United Nations human development index. Social programs are also being developed in South Korea, particularly access to post-secondary education and energy strategies, while corruption is at a minimum. Therefore, this agreement meets this first criterion, which covers human rights. Our second criterion relates to the overall economic and strategic value of this alliance for Canada.

We could talk about this criterion in terms that the government could understand by looking at the Investment Canada Act, for instance. We are asking the same questions. Is this agreement in the best interests of Canada? However, instead of relying on the arbitrary opinion of just one minister, we are assessing and quantifying this criterion in light of the global economy and trade figures.

(1320) The answer to the question about the objective meaning of the partnership is clearly positive. South Korea is Canada's seventh largest partner and the third largest economy in the Asian market. Canada's trade exports with South Korea are essentially the same as those with France or with Germany. We are talking about $3.4 billion in 2013. In economic terms, this agreement could be fruitful for Canada, given that Korea is an attractive gateway to other Asian economies. In addition, our two economies are quite complementary, which means that not many of our industries will be in direct competition.

That is an important point. In addition, virtually all the economic sectors in Canada welcome the agreement and will very likely derive substantial benefits from it. These sectors include the aerospace industry, the high tech sector, the shipping industry, the forestry sector, the mining sector, the agricultural sectors—namely the hog, beef, wine and grain industries—and the seafood industry. We therefore recognize that this agreement has strategic value and meets the second criterion. The final criterion relates to the practical terms of the agreement. We need to read an agreement before we can approve it.

It is a signed contract between two nations. The details of the agreement are very important, and that is why it is inconceivable for us to support or reject an agreement without having even read it. We therefore took the time to read the terms of the trade agreement between Canada and South Korea. Are the specific terms of the agreement satisfactory? Will they be advantageous for Canada or not?

As was mentioned earlier, the two countries will essentially be on equal footing thanks to our complementary economies and South Korea's improvements in the areas of human rights, environmental standards and treatment of workers. Speaking of workers, we are not the first country to sign a free-trade agreement with South Korea. Many countries have done so before us, including the United States. Earlier, I mentioned the fact that our economies complement one another and that work conditions are good.

Many large union groups, such as the UFCW, have thrown their support behind the agreement between Korea and the United States because it has the potential to create thousands of jobs. What is more, those jobs will be local, well-paying jobs in sectors of the economy where the jobs are often unionized. They support the agreement between Canada and South Korea. To continue, I will now explain why this agreement meets our criteria and why we will be supporting it at second reading.

For a while now, it has been recognized and often stated that Canada must diversify its trade partners and try to reduce the percentage of trade that it conducts with the United States and the European Union, its traditional partners. In light of that, it makes sense to strengthen ties with South Korea, which is our seventh-largest trading partner. In fact, when it comes to Asia, we need to be talking about the entire region, not just Korea. South Korea is our third-largest trading partner in Asia, and it is important to expand trade with the country.

The NDP recognizes that increasing trade with Asia is a crucial step towards ensuring prosperity, economic growth and dependable jobs in Canada in the 21st century. Korea is also a gateway to the rest of the Asian market. Under this agreement our exporters will have more and better opportunities in the Asian market. This will be good for our economy and for diversifying Canada's international trade. Unlike other countries that Canada has signed agreements with despite the NDP's objections, such as Honduras, South Korea is a well-established, globally recognized democracy.

Supporting a toxic, authoritarian regime that violates its citizens' rights is not even an issue in this case. In other words, this is exactly the kind of developed economy that we should be developing a deeper, more sustainable trade relationship with. It has high labour and human rights standards, and it is the kind of partner we should be looking for. When we trade with other nations, we have to think about the goods that will be traded, that will travel from one country to the other, but we also have to think about what we are supporting with that trade.

In the case of Honduras, I spoke at length in the House about how the agreement would support a country that is heading the wrong way in terms of human rights, a country where, in most cases, workers struggle with terrible working conditions. Those concerns do not apply to Korea. Instead, this is a partner that shares our values of democracy and justice. By doing business with Korean companies, Canadian exporters will be working with partners who understand their obligations in terms of working conditions and how employees should be treated.

Consider how easy it is for a Honduran company to lower its labour costs and provide a dangerous working environment for its employees. How can we ask Canadian companies to accept that a foreign competitor can be subject to domestic regulations that are so radically different from our own? With South Korea, our companies will be dealing with partners and competitors who are subject to very similar regulations and whose reality is the same.

(1325) That is really good, because even by purchasing Korean products here, our consumers will be giving their money to responsible businesses that have good practices. That is not the case in some other agreements. It is also important to remember the environmental aspect. Korea has high environmental standards and is a world leader in that regard. It leads the world in renewable energy and green technology, and it is in our interest to boost our trade with these sectors, which are so important for the future.

The Koreans are offering us this opportunity, and it just seems logical to me that we should take it in order to increase the portion of our economy that depends on greener power. This will be quite a change from what we are doing now. We are definitely not the only ones who think this agreement could be good for the Canadian economy. A number of industry associations in sectors including aerospace, agriculture and agri-food, fish and seafood, chemicals, energy, forestry and financial services also think so.

This agreement is good news for our agriculture sector, because it will enable our pork and beef producers not to expand their presence on Korean markets, but actually recover lost ground. For instance, Canadian beef exports to South Korea dropped from $96 million in 2011 to just $8 million in 2013. Canadian pork experts dropped from first place on the South Korean market to fourth place between 2011 and 2013. The free trade agreement with South Korea will eliminate nearly 87% of agricultural tariff lines and finally allow Canadian exporters to play on a level playing field.

It is becoming increasingly urgent to conclude this agreement before Australia's trade deal with South Korea is implemented, because Australia is one of our major competitors in agriculture. As for seafood, fishers on both coasts will benefit. Current tariffs are 47%, and most of them will be eliminated. Fishers and processors on the west coast can barely keep up with their competitors in Alaska because of the trade agreement that already exists between the United States and Korea. Some 230,000 jobs in the country depend on forestry.

It is also important to my riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, where the sector has gone through some tough times. Canadian exporters currently face tariffs of 10%, which will disappear with the agreement. In light of all these facts, it seems that the free trade agreement with South Korea satisfies our three criteria. I am quite proud that we took the time to do this analysis instead of just sticking to a purely ideological approach like some parties that are prepared to sign any agreement no matter what or other parties that approve these agreements without even reading them.

Only the NDP has a sensible, balanced approach to trade. We are the only ones who want to ensure that trade agreements with other countries will truly benefit Canadians. Now that I have gone over the positive aspects of the agreement, I want to be clear that it is not perfect. The agreement in its current form is not something we as a government would have signed. Let us talk about the automotive sector. There are some positive aspects, of course, such as the elimination of the 6.1% tariffs on imports and the 8% tariffs on exports. This will be good for consumers here, and also for our exports to Korea.

Other positives include the rules of origin provisions that recognize Canadian-U.S. integrated products, which is vital to our manufacturers. The same goes for the accelerated dispute resolution mechanism, which will make it easier to lift non-tariff barriers. There are also some legitimate concerns about the automotive sector. That is why an NDP government would do everything in its power to allay those fears and mitigate the potential consequences by encouraging Korean automakers to set up plants here in Canada and helping Canadian automotive products access the Korean market more easily.

We should monitor non-tariff barriers closely, act swiftly and effectively to resolve disputes, and conduct frequent trade missions to Korea. That is why I would like the government to explain how it plans to mitigate the consequences for the automotive sector, especially since the conditions it obtained are less favourable than what is in the American agreement. Yesterday, when we announced our support for this agreement, my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway , clearly said what I mentioned earlier: this is not the agreement that we would have negotiated.

The biggest problem with this agreement is obviously the investor state dispute resolution mechanism. An NDP government—just like the main opposition party in Korea—would not have included this mechanism in the agreement. When the NDP is in power after 2015, we could perhaps negotiate with the government of Korea to remove this provision.

(1330) The principle of these investor state mechanisms is cause for concern and rightly so in many cases. Consider the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. It took the government a long time to negotiate the agreement and then to ratify it after it was announced. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley just mentioned that in a question. This investment protection agreement has a number of flaws. First, it is not a reciprocal agreement and it clearly favours China. We mentioned that in several speeches.

Even if the agreement had to be cancelled, Chinese firms could sue the Canadian government before secret tribunals for 31 years. That is another major flaw of the agreement. Furthermore, China could continue to impose conditions concerning local preferences, such as suppliers and jobs,

whereas Canada could not. The fundamental issue of reciprocity is involved here. Finally, the Conservative government was not even able to negotiate national treatment for any new Canadian investment in China—not for companies already in China, but for all new investment made after the agreement is signed. The investor state dispute resolution mechanism in the Canada-Korea free trade agreement is different. It is 100% reciprocal, as is the rest of the agreement.

What is more, if the agreement is cancelled, it ceases to apply after only six months, not after 31 years, as is the case with the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement between Canada and China. Furthermore, this free trade agreement with Korea contains transparency measures. Some hearings will be public and teams of experts may even allow third parties who are not directly involved in the dispute to make presentations or submit written briefs. Civil society and non-governmental organizations can therefore get involved.

There are no such measures in agreements such as NAFTA or previous versions of this type of investor state provision. The dispute resolution mechanism in the agreement with Korea is also faster. For example,

chapter 11 of NAFTA provides for a period of 90 days between the date that the claim is submitted and arbitration. The disputed measure must be in effect for at least six months. The technical summaries that we received for the Canada-Korea free trade agreement indicate that the timeframe will be shorter and that things will move faster in cases involving fresh produce or motor vehicles. That is why, despite this negative aspect, there are advantages to the Canada-Korea free trade agreement that outweigh the disadvantages.

After conducting a complete and comprehensive assessment of this agreement, we decided to support it. It is not the agreement an NDP government would have negotiated. However, we find it acceptable. Ultimately, we believe that this agreement will be good for Canada and our exporters. It will have a positive effect on the forestry and agricultural industries in my riding and those of many other members on this side of the House. However, I want to emphasize that the government should tell us about its plan for one of the industries that will be the hardest hit, the automobile industry.

We still have not heard any answers from the government in this regard. The NDP's prudent and balanced approach is the right approach, and it should be used so that trade agreements benefit our exporters, our economy and our workers. It is imperative that we have a healthy debate in the House. However, when I listen to the Conservative members' speeches, and particularly their answers to our criticisms of the agreement, I can see that they do not feel they should have done anything differently.

In internal memos, officials with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade were critical of the fact that the department's resources were focused on less strategically important agreements than the one with Korea, for example. That prevented us from concluding the agreement as quickly as we could have. The United States and the European Union have had trade agreements with Korea since 2012. We lost considerable ground because of the government's strategic choice, which I do not understand. In all honesty, the government has not managed to explain this choice to me.

For example, beef and pork exporters who had extremely well-established niches in Korea lost that initial advantage because the government was slow to act. I will soon take questions from Conservative members, I hope, and probably from other members of the House.

(1335) I would like them to keep in mind that no party in the House is perfect, the process itself was flawed and the government should learn from its mistakes so that it can be much more effective in future trade agreement negotiations. [ English ] Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's mostly positive speech, he kept slipping between the Korean free trade agreement and the Canada-China FIPA. I am trying to follow where he got lost a bit, but I will focus strictly on Korea, which is the purpose of this debate.

In his comments, he mentioned the U.S. snap-back provision that was provided through the U.S. free trade agreement with Korea. From my understanding of snap-back provisions, they have really limited practical value. I think that when we measure the tariff level of 2.5% between U.S. and Korea against the 6.1% level that we are dealing with in the Canada-Korea relationship, there is a different set of dynamics. The other piece of the snap-back provision, which I think really minimizes its impact, is that it is a 10-year provision in the U.S.-Korea agreement, and it cannot even be used in the first four years.

I wonder if my colleague opposite would comment on where he sees the deficiency in our agreement and the substantive impact that he was referring to. The other thing I want to mention quickly is that 85% of Canadian production is built for export. I wonder if he would comment on where he sees the impact of that export production impacting this relationship. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. It is clear from my speech and my previous interventions in the House that we are in favour of diversifying markets for Canada and our exporters.

Putting almost all of our eggs in one basket—be it the European Union or the United States, our two main markets right now—is a risky approach. That is why we like the possibility and the prospect of diversifying our export markets. If we compare our agreement with the agreement the United States signed with Korea, we can see that we took a long time to act once the agreement was signed. I think the member would agree that the government put a great deal of emphasis on signing the agreement with the European Union, to avoid having to compete with negotiations between the United States and the European Union.

This agreement should have been just as urgent, but that was not the case. The timing of the negotiations and the fact that they were probably not given as much attention as they should have are to blame in part for our being behind the United States, which has already eliminated many of its tariffs because of its agreement. (1340) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member talked a great deal about the automobile industry. It is a very important industry.

I can recall my party, the Liberal Party, being very proactive going all the way back to the 1960s in terms of the Auto Pact arrangement. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is obviously a concern. Having said that, we will be very diligent as we continue to watch what is taking place within that industry. The member made one specific comment which I want to flesh out a bit. I am not sure about this and this is why I am looking for clarification. He indicated that he believes an NDP administration would force Korean manufacturers to make their automobiles here in Canada.

How would the member propose to do that? [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Winnipeg North . The automobile industry is extremely important, and we will also be watching how this agreement affects the industry, particularly in terms of the non-tariff barriers that were perceived as a problem with the agreement between the United States and South Korea. They are also a concern here. I understand and we will be watching that. I do not think the

interpretation reflected what I said. I did not talk about forcing Korean companies to move to Canada. I talked about encouraging them to do so. There is a series of measures we could implement, especially when we have this type of agreement with a country. Obviously, much closer trade relations could make it easier to negotiate and, with various incentives, could encourage companies to move here.

If tariff barriers are eliminated, and hopefully non-tariff barriers will not stand in the way, our current producers will have significantly more export opportunities.This is a good thing, but it requires ongoing monitoring and we will have to draw some conclusions eventually. Right now, we export roughly 100 cars to South Korea. With this trade agreement, we will have greater opportunities. I hope our car manufacturers will be able to take advantage of that. We will do everything we can to help them, specifically by organizing trade missions to South Korea. [ English ] Ms.

Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in an earlier question, the member opposite mentioned that he wondered why the NDP member was raising the issue around the Canada-China FIPA in the context of this piece of legislation. My understanding is that the member was drawing a parallel between the fact that in the Canada-China FIPA there is no ability to renegotiate the investor state dispute settlement mechanism for 31 years,

whereas in this agreement it can actually be renegotiated in six months. The member certainly raised some concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism as outlined in this particular agreement. I wonder if he could highlight for the House specifically some of the concerns with regard to this investor state dispute settlement mechanism. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her question. In fact there has been an ongoing debate on such a provision since NAFTA was signed.

The NDP has never been in favour of such a clause, particularly because of its secret nature. Administrative tribunals usually meet behind closed doors, and people cannot really attend or participate, even though some individuals might be directly or indirectly affected. We are therefore not very fond of this provision. However,